Quote:
Player text on NHL meeting: "More wasted time. Our choice is either give up everything to the league or watch them cancel the season."

Weren't the PA the ones 'leading the meeting' today? No proposal presented, no economic plan. Wouldn't be surprised if Fehr showed up with scribbles on a napkin again.

I know Fehr likes the tactic of making the other side negotiate against themselves but at some point they have to put a serious proposal together. For what the Fehrs have accomplished so far, I could have been running the union. Enough telling us how interested and involved the players are, just make a proposal already. One that has something the other side can work off of or gives them an honorable way out of this.

Quote:
Player text on NHL meeting: "More wasted time. Our choice is either give up everything to the league or watch them cancel the season."

Weren't the PA the ones 'leading the meeting' today? No proposal presented, no economic plan. Wouldn't be surprised if Fehr showed up with scribbles on a napkin again.

Is it me or does it seem like the PA goes out of their way to piss off the NHL and make things difficult.

It was no secret before yesterday that Bettman wanted to finalize the revenue split before discussing contracting issues. It was reported several times and definitely not a secret.

Yet the PA says they want to talk! Then comes to the table with no offer and trying to discuss contracting issues????

One of the main sticking points of me leaning towards ownership is the constant method of the PA to do everything ass backwards. They wait for offers then ignore and present their own offers??? They don;t want to call off talks or take a break yet call meetings to discuss items Bettman said he will not discuss. I know it is not Bettman's right to pick and choose what he wants to talk about. But the PA called for the meeting and knew his stance and once again ignored it.

They know they have our best offer, which is a 50-50 sharing and the other issues that we've proposed to them. They proposed 17 issues last week and we agreed to 13 of them. We know where the negotiations led to, they know they have our best offer. We've always said if they have something to discuss, we're always available to meet.

How, other than we aren't going to negotiate, would you interpret Bettman here?

If the owners were serious they'd say 50-50 with no other takeaways. They haven't they want to take away from every benefit/right the players have. And the make whole is only for existing contracts, and many have pointed out how many players contracts are expiring in the next year or two. Bettman makes it clear there is no negotiating the owners are willing to do. Take it or leave it.

How, other than we aren't going to negotiate, would you interpret Bettman here?

If the owners were serious they'd say 50-50 with no other takeaways. They haven't they want to take away from every benefit/right the players have. And the make whole is only for existing contracts, and many have pointed out have many players contracts are expiring in the next year or two. Bettman makes it clear there is no negotiating the owners are willing to do. Take it or leave it.

Oh please!! Bettman has said multiple times that he has put forth the "Best Offer" only to come back later with a better offer.

What is needed is a full and complete offer from the PA. Two partial offers don;t make a full offer. The PA should take Bettman's best offer and counter with their "best offer" and then meet in the middle for the actual best offer.

To this point there has been no back and forth. There has been the PA waiting for the NHL offer and then ignoring it and slightly tweaking their last offer. Time to put both Best Offers on the table and get to negotiating.

How, other than we aren't going to negotiate, would you interpret Bettman here?

If the owners were serious they'd say 50-50 with no other takeaways. They haven't they want to take away from every benefit/right the players have. And the make whole is only for existing contracts, and many have pointed out how many players contracts are expiring in the next year or two. Bettman makes it clear there is no negotiating the owners are willing to do. Take it or leave it.

I must have been absent the day of school when 'we're always available to meet' in terms of having something to discuss meant they weren't willing to negotiate.

Oh please!! Bettman has said multiple times that he has put forth the "Best Offer" only to come back later with a better offer.

What is needed is a full and complete offer from the PA. Two partial offers don;t make a full offer. The PA should take Bettman's best offer and counter with their "best offer" and then meet in the middle for the actual best offer.

To this point there has been no back and forth. There has been the PA waiting for the NHL offer and then ignoring it and slightly tweaking their last offer. Time to put both Best Offers on the table and get to negotiating.

Owners should take the players offer and counter with one based on that offer. When you go to a meeting get a players offer and then hand out your own offer in the same meeting you aren't even considering the players offer.

How do you write up a counter offer in advance without ever seeing the offer you are supposedly countering?

How, other than we aren't going to negotiate, would you interpret Bettman here?

If the owners were serious they'd say 50-50 with no other takeaways. They haven't they want to take away from every benefit/right the players have. And the make whole is only for existing contracts, and many have pointed out how many players contracts are expiring in the next year or two. Bettman makes it clear there is no negotiating the owners are willing to do. Take it or leave it.

This is a little confusing. Could you maybe clean this up a bit? I don't want to misinterpret what you're getting at. Sorry, reading's not my strong suit this early in the morning.

To add: This 2 week off thing seems to be a major sticking point for the union and those that support them. If Fehr said he didn't know where to go next, and Bettman didn't know where to go next, suggesting some time away isn't the greatest injustice in the world. I've had to take a step back from many problems and/or conflicts and was able to come back with a different point of view or a fresh idea to start with. I guess that's not the case here. Fehr said he'd rather keep talking and they did, what's the problem?

I must have been absent the day of school when 'we're always available to meet' in terms of having something to discuss meant they weren't willing to negotiate.

Or you just believe people at face value without considering their motives? My wife believes salesmen, I believe they're trying to sell something and their motive is to get my money in their pocket, not make my life better.

This is a little confusing. Could you maybe clean this up a bit? I don't want to misinterpret what you're getting at. Sorry, reading's not my strong suit this early in the morning.

Perhaps you haven't read to leaks about the offers. Owners aren't just after 50-50 right now. Shorter contracts, less guaranteed money on Entry Level Contracts, less arbitration rights (and I believe only at the team's request), longer time/age to UFA, I haven't read one give from the owners accept of course the privilege to play in the NHL. Personally, I don't turn on the game to watch owners or GM's.

Owners are not offering one thing in compensation for all these reductions.

And Bettman makes it clear the offer isn't going to get any better. When you say this is the best offer, it is a take it or leave it.

Owners should take the players offer and counter with one based on that offer. When you go to a meeting get a players offer and then hand out your own offer in the same meeting you aren't even considering the players offer.

How do you write up a counter offer in advance without ever seeing the offer you are supposedly countering?

You don't.

Yes!! Because the PA thus far has never done that. Except for time they got an offer waited a month and did the exact same thing.

How do you write up an offer in advance! You write up several offers to several possibilities and leave them flexible enough to change quickly and present.

Is it me or does it seem like the PA goes out of their way to piss off the NHL and make things difficult.

Yet the PA says they want to talk! Then comes to the table with no offer and trying to discuss contracting issues????.

This is not hard to figure out as player contracting issues are related to the talks. The NHL demands 50/50 HRR split which is a reduction from NHLPA previous 57% share (-12%)..

In order for the NHL to get a bigger piece of the revenue pie they need to offer the NHLPA something in return and that would be in greater freedom in player contract rights to offset the new HRR % increase they're receiving. In last CBA in order to get their hard salary cap they needed to relinquish player rights that benefited the PA like earlier UFA status etc to reach a deal.

A negotiation is a give and take procedure and not one side doing all the taking, and the other side doing all the giving in hopes of reaching a successful settlement, and then complaining that they're not getting everything their own way. If its not their way then there is no reason to discuss anything, and the players and fans remain locked out.

Therefore since NHLPA has agreed to meet the NHLPA at their revenue splitting desired figure a very large concession on their part benefiting the Owners, they simply want to know what's in it for them in these negotiations?

There isn't a current thing on the table that benefits the NHLPA, its all simply TAKE, TAKE and more TAKE from the NHL in all areas related to the CBA. So of course logically the NHLPA wants to discuss things that would counteract the take it or leave it tactics of the Bettman and the Owners.

__________________
Signature: There is no greater demonstration of Fan patience then to suggest to "Play the Kids " and be willing to accept the consequences of those actions..

Perhaps you haven't read to leaks about the offers. Owners aren't just after 50-50 right now. Shorter contracts, less guaranteed money on Entry Level Contracts, less arbitration rights (and I believe only at the team's request), longer time/age to UFA, I haven't read one give from the owners accept of course the privilege to play in the NHL. Personally, I don't turn on the game to watch owners or GM's.

Owners are not offering one thing in compensation for all these reductions.

And Bettman makes it clear the offer isn't going to get any better. When you say this is the best offer, it is a take it or leave it.

Ya! You do actually turn on a game to watch the owners or GM's. You don;t turn on a game to watch Sidney Crosby or Ovechkin shoot pucks at an empty net. You tune into to watch the team supported by the owner and assembled by the GM. They created the product you watch. Not the players! You don't eat Sodium Caseinate, you eat Dorito's!

This is not hard to figure out as player contracting issues are related to the talks. The NHL demands 50/50 HRR split which is a reduction from NHLPA previous 57% share (-12%)..

In order for the NHL to get a bigger piece of the revenue pie they need to offer the NHLPA something in return and that would be in greater freedom in player contract rights to offset the new HRR % increase they're receiving. In last CBA in order to get their hard salary cap they needed to relinquish player rights that benefited the PA like earlier UFA status etc to reach a deal.

A negotiation is a give and take procedure and not one sided doing all the taking, and the other side doing all the giving in hopes of reaching a settlement, and then complaining that they are not getting their way. If its not their way then there is no reason to discuss anything, and the players and fans remain locked out.

Therefore since NHLPA has agreed to meet the NHLPA at their revenue splitting desired figure a very large concession on their part benefiting the Owners, they simply want to know what's in it for them in these negotiations?

There isn't a current thing on the table that benefits the NHLPA, its all simply TAKE, TAKE and more TAKE from the NHL in all areas related to the CBA. So of course logically the NHLPA wants to discuss things that would counteract the take it or leave it tactics of the Bettman and the Owners.

So revenue sharing wasn't a give? Make whole is a pretty damn big concession too. 50/50 had to happen, that's a fact of life in professional sports in north america in 2012. The landing is as soft as it is going to get.

I don't see TAKE TAKE here...

The contracts are going to be paid in full and the League will be healthy long term at 50/50. This is a good thing for the players too, despite what they are saying. Less share of the pie has proven to not mean lower salaries in the long run.

Once the players accept reality of 50/50, the contract issues will be easily solved. At the end of the day the owners only need the circumvention loophole closed, which again is better for everyone.

Perhaps you haven't read to leaks about the offers. Owners aren't just after 50-50 right now. Shorter contracts, less guaranteed money on Entry Level Contracts, less arbitration rights (and I believe only at the team's request), longer time/age to UFA, I haven't read one give from the owners accept of course the privilege to play in the NHL. Personally, I don't turn on the game to watch owners or GM's.

Owners are not offering one thing in compensation for all these reductions.

And Bettman makes it clear the offer isn't going to get any better. When you say this is the best offer, it is a take it or leave it.

Without the owners, there would be no game to turn on. Owners are offering the players a chance to play hockey for a living while making more guaranteed money than they could anywhere else in the world. In your opinion, how much better can the offers get for the players? What is the NHL supposed to offer at this point?

IMO, the players should toss the rookies under the bus because every union does, accept the 50-50 revenue split and demand the current UFA age remains the same. Everything else can be negotiated.

Perhaps you haven't read to leaks about the offers. Owners aren't just after 50-50 right now. Shorter contracts, less guaranteed money on Entry Level Contracts, less arbitration rights (and I believe only at the team's request), longer time/age to UFA, I haven't read one give from the owners accept of course the privilege to play in the NHL. Personally, I don't turn on the game to watch owners or GM's.

Owners are not offering one thing in compensation for all these reductions.

And Bettman makes it clear the offer isn't going to get any better. When you say this is the best offer, it is a take it or leave it.

You aren't seeing the forest through the trees.

Once the players accept 50/50 linked, the lockout will be over within days.

Without the owners, there would be no game to turn on. Owners are offering the players a chance to play hockey for a living while making more guaranteed money than they could anywhere else in the world. In your opinion, how much better can the offers get for the players? What is the NHL supposed to offer at this point?

IMO, the players should toss the rookies under the bus because every union does, accept the 50-50 revenue split and demand the current UFA age remains the same. Everything else can be negotiated.

Obviously, if there is a market owners will come. Owners die franchises live on.

Anyway, I think 50-50 of HRR-AE is fair, although hardly as straight forward as some people believe as it is open to manipulation.

I think UFA age should be reduced (50-50 dictates how much money is available not age of players), I could go with the reduced ELSC, lets players move on more quickly to other teams if they aren't given the 3rd. year of the contract.

So owners want a 5 year max, make UFA age after 7 years.
This is based on the owners wanting to hand out 2 year Entry level contracts and the 5 years of maximum length they want.

50-50 split and make whole or allow players out of their contracts if the player wants a release.
So if someone signed a 10 year contract and the owners are now saying they won't pay it, allow the player to chose UFA status, freeing the owners from their own contract. If the player agrees he can stay with his reduced contract. This allows individual players to make the decision, not the association. You could also allow the team to make whole without it counting against the cap. So each situation would be handled independently.

Get rid of arbitration altogether, instead allow the player and team to agree to a separation and grant UFA status if they both agree. Call this rule the Reddon Release Clause.

So revenue sharing wasn't a give? Make whole is a pretty damn big concession too. 50/50 had to happen, that's a fact of life in professional sports in north america in 2012. The landing is as soft as it is going to get.

I don't see TAKE TAKE here...

The contracts are going to be paid in full and the League will be healthy long term at 50/50. This is a good thing for the players too, despite what they are saying. Less share of the pie has proven to not mean lower salaries in the long run.

Once the players accept reality of 50/50, the contract issues will be easily solved. At the end of the day the owners only need the circumvention loophole closed, which again is better for everyone.

Make whole, seriously?

You mean like the concession the Owners are making to actually pay the players their guaranteed contracts that they agreed to previously, instead of asking for discounts on current deals. Wow what a great gesture on their part to pay what they agreed to. NHLPA already have those signed binding legal contracts today, before the lockout occurred, simply getting paid what is owed is not a concession on the Owners part to their benefit.

Revenue sharing is already also in the current CBA, that exists today where rich teams help of the poorer teams located in small/non traditional hockey markets that Bettman placed there and now need help staying alive.. NHLPA had no part of deciding when or where a franchise is located, neither do they get a % cut of the franchise fees. Owners each divide up those $$ among themselves. The NHLPA benefit in successful revenue sharing system is to avoid another future lockout and from the billionaire owners crying "poor me", and demanding the players are responsible for keeping franchise afloat. NHLPA would be more than happy to see weak NHL markets moved to stronger ones in order to sustain greater profitability in regions that can support hockey teams.

Sure 50/50 HRR split makes sense as it meets in the middle of equal partnership. NHLPA is willing to reduce their cut accordingly as a concession to meet in the middle.. They currently had 57% so going to 50% is not a benefit but large concession from their side.

As far as all these ridiculous individual rights demands like contract length and earning potential, etc that the NHL is demanding. Why is it any of their business how the NHLPA decides to divide their own 50% portion of HRR among the players themselves.. If the NHLPA is okay with Sidney Crosby on a 10 year deal and Tim Connolly on a 2 year deal at their current rates of pay, then how does that matter to the owners that pay them as its all apart of the agreed upon the new 50% that they would be entitled to.

"It's part of the business of the game. The least attractive part of the game."

That's the part that irked me. No Gary, a lockout should not be 'part of the game.' It is not something that should happen every single time the CBA runs out, it is an abomination, a failure on the part of both sides. This should never happen to a sports league, let alone 3 times in his tenure.

You mean like the concession the Owners are making to actually pay the players their guaranteed contracts that they agreed to previously, instead of asking for discounts on current deals. Wow what a great gesture on their part to pay what they agreed to. NHLPA already have those signed binding legal contracts today, before the lockout occurred, simply getting paid what is owed is not a concession on the Owners part to their benefit.

Revenue sharing is already also in the current CBA, that exists today where rich teams help of the poorer teams located in small/non traditional hockey markets that Bettman placed there and now need help staying alive.. NHLPA had no part of deciding when or where a franchise is located, neither do they get a % cut of the franchise fees. Owners each divide up those $$ among themselves. The NHLPA benefit in successful revenue sharing system is to avoid another future lockout and from the billionaire owners crying "poor me", and demanding the players are responsible for keeping franchise afloat. NHLPA would be more than happy to see weak NHL markets moved to stronger ones in order to sustain greater profitability in regions that can support hockey teams.

Sure 50/50 HRR split makes sense as it meets in the middle of equal partnership. NHLPA is willing to reduce their cut accordingly as a concession to meet in the middle.. They currently had 57% so going to 50% is not a benefit but large concession from their side.

As far as all these ridiculous individual rights demands like contract length and earning potential, etc that the NHL is demanding. Why is it any of their business how the NHLPA decides to divide their own 50% portion of HRR among the players themselves.. If the NHLPA is okay with Sidney Crosby on a 10 year deal and Tim Connolly on a 2 year deal at their current rates of pay, then how does that matter to the owners that pay them as its all apart of the agreed upon the new 50% that they would be entitled to.

Guaranteed contracts? What you most people leave out is the guarantee is the contract is always superceeded by the CBA and all players were aware of that and know full well that their contract will be affected by the CBA negotiations. Some were likely even based on it and inflated. Tired of the players talking about owners not honoring their contracts! Maybe players should start reading theirs!

You mean like the concession the Owners are making to actually pay the players their guaranteed contracts that they agreed to previously, instead of asking for discounts on current deals. Wow what a great gesture on their part to pay what they agreed to.

Yes, seriously. The fact that they are doing this despite the inevitable decline in revenues is remarkable imo.

Quote:

NHLPA already have those signed binding legal contracts today, before the lockout occurred, simply getting paid what is owed is not a concession on the Owners part to their benefit.

Those contracts are subject to the CBA, which has expired. Right now the players have 0% of revenues. I disagree with your sentiment. It sounds like whining to me. Yeah it sucks, but so did the crash, the jacked up Canadian dollar and the skyrocketing jet fuel prices. The big picture tells a much different story.

Quote:

Revenue sharing is already also in the current CBA, that exists today where rich teams help of the poorer teams located in small/non traditional hockey markets that Bettman placed there and now need help staying alive.. NHLPA had no part of deciding when or where a franchise is located, neither do they get a % cut of the franchise fees. Owners each divide up those $$ among themselves. The NHLPA benefit in successful revenue sharing system is to avoid another future lockout and from the billionaire owners crying "poor me", and demanding the players are responsible for keeping franchise afloat. NHLPA would be more than happy to see weak NHL markets moved to stronger ones in order to sustain greater profitability in regions that can support hockey teams.

The NH cannot continue with HRR split at 57-43%. Not after what happened in '08. It's not about "poor me", it's about the economy. Why are you so emotional about this even though it has absolutely nothing to do with you?

For the record, increasing the Revenue sharing is something that the players wanted and is something the owners do not care for in principal. The result is a concession of players. You may interpret the spirit of it all you like, but it boils down to this simple dynamic. Yeah the players are going to have to take a pay cut to keep teams afloat, they are paid too much. (This is a fact). In business if your operating costs exceed your revenues, what do you think is going to happen?

Quote:

Sure 50/50 HRR split makes sense as it meets in the middle of equal partnership. NHLPA is willing to reduce their cut accordingly as a concession to meet in the middle.. They currently had 57% so going to 50% is not a benefit but large concession from their side.

They are only willing to take a 50/50 split if it's de-linked. That's not going to fly and they know it. It's a PR move. The players have only conceded a smaller piece of future growth if it grows, not the loss.

This is no partnership, and quite laughable that you feel it to be that way given the PA's current position.

Quote:

As far as all these ridiculous individual rights demands like contract length and earning potential, etc that the NHL is demanding. Why is it any of their business how the NHLPA decides to divide their own 50% portion of HRR among the players themselves.. If the NHLPA is okay with Sidney Crosby on a 10 year deal and Tim Connolly on a 2 year deal at their current rates of pay, then how does that matter to the owners that pay them as its all apart of the agreed upon the new 50% that they would be entitled to.

The owners really only want two things, 50/50 linked and an end to cap circumvention/front loaded contracts. The rest is window dressing to be negotiated. The owners will let a lot of that go if the players agree to the economic situation. They have basically said this many times already. This is why the owners aren't budging because that's the leverage.

10+ year deals are bad for the game and bad for the players as a whole. The majority of them will not work out and will cause long term strife amongst the fans. We haven't seen the impact of it yet but it'll happen.